Britain Rejects US Request To Use UK Bases In Nuclear Standoff With Iran

Britain has rebuffed US pleas to use military bases in the UK to
support the build-up of forces in the Gulf, citing secret legal
advice which states that any pre-emptive strike on Iran could be
in breach of international law.

The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied
for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly
from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego
Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British
territories.

The US approaches are part of contingency planning over the
nuclear standoff with Tehran, but British ministers have so far
reacted coolly. They have pointed US officials to legal advice
drafted by the attorney general's office which has been
circulated to Downing Street, the Foreign Office and the Ministry
of Defence.

This makes clear that Iran, which has consistently denied it has
plans to develop a nuclear weapon, does not currently represent
"a clear and present threat". Providing assistance to forces that
could be involved in a pre-emptive strike would be a clear breach
of international law, it states.

"The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated
what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior
Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using
this to push back against the Americans."

Sources said the US had yet to make a formal request to the
British government, and that they did not believe an acceleration
towards conflict was imminent or more likely. The discussions so
far had been to scope out the British position, they said.

"But I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been
reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront
assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from
senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come
as a bit of a surprise."

The situation reflects the lack of appetite within Whitehall for
the UK to be drawn into any conflict, though the Royal Navy has a
large presence in the Gulf in case the ongoing diplomatic efforts
fail.

The navy has up to 10 ships in the region, including a
nuclear-powered submarine. Its counter-mine vessels are on
permanent rotation to help ensure that the strategically
important shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz remain
open.

The Guardian has been told that a British military delegation
with a strong navy contingent flew to US Central Command
headquarters in Tampa, Florida, earlier this summer to run
through a range of contingency plans with US planners.

The UK, however, has assumed that it would only become involved
once a conflict had already begun, and has been reluctant to
commit overt support to Washington in the buildup to any military
action.

"It is quite likely that if the Israelis decided to attack Iran,
or the Americans felt they had to do it for the Israelis or in
support of them, the UK would not be told beforehand," said the
source. "In some respects, the UK government would prefer it that
way."

British and US diplomats insisted that the two countries regarded
a diplomatic solution as the priority. But this depends on the
White House being able to restrain Israel, which is nervous that
Iran's underground uranium enrichment plant will soon make its
nuclear programme immune to any outside attempts to stop it.

Israel has a less developed strike capability and its window for
action against Iran will close much more quickly than that of the
US, explained another official. "The key to holding back Israel
is Israeli confidence that the US will deal with Iran when the
moment is right."

Six global powers will spearhead a drive which is likely to
involve an offer to lift some of the sanctions that have crippled
Iran's economy in return for Tehran limiting its stockpile of
enriched uranium.

The countries involved are the US, the UK, France, Germany,
Russia and China. Iran will be represented by its chief
negotiator, Saeed Jalili.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "As we continue to make clear,
the government does not believe military action against Iran is
the right course of action at this time, although no option is
off the table. We believe that the twin-track approach of
pressure through sanctions, which are having an impact, and
engagement with Iran is the best way to resolve the nuclear
issue. We are not going to speculate about scenarios in which
military action would be legal. That would depend on the
circumstances at the time."

The Foreign Office said it would not disclose whether the
attorney general's advice has been sought on any specific issue.

A US state department official said: "The US and the UK
co-ordinate on all kinds of subjects all the time, on a huge
range of issues. We never speak on the record about these types
of conversations."

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, warned at the UN
general assembly last month that Iran's nuclear programme would
reach Israel's "red line" by "next spring, at most by next
summer", implying that Israel might then take military action in
an attempt to destroy nuclear sites and set back the programme.

That red line, which Netanyahu illustrated at the UN with a
marker pen on a picture of a bomb, is defined by Iranian progress
in making uranium enriched to 20%, which would be much easier
than uranium enriched to 5% to turn into weapons-grade material,
should Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, take the
strategic decision to abandon Iran's observance of the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty and try to make a weapon. Tehran insists
it has no such intention.